With the increasing shift of population from rural to urban centers, control and disposable of animal waste has become increasingly important. For typical household use the container must be large enough for the animal to deposit its waste but yet constructed in a manner which allows convenient disposal of the soiled container. The art has provided two different basic kinds of construction in this regard. In a first construction, a flexible sheet of moisture proof material is adapted to be spread upon a supporting surface, such as a floor, tray, box or the like, and retained thereby while the animal uses the same. The material is disposable by contacting the edges of the sheet so as to enclose the excrement and form the sheet into a suitable waste receptacle. In other words, this approach provides a flexible disposable waste container. U.S. Pat. No. 3,626,900 is typical of this arrangement.
The flexible containers suffer from several major disadvantages. Firstly, the requirement for a water proof flexible sheet connected with each container substantially increase the cost of each container. As can be appreciated, not only the materials involved, but the labor in construction contributes substantially to the increased cost. Another difficulty is that of folding the corners and otherwise handling the flexible sheet without spilling the waste or other material (e.g., absorbent) from the so-formed container. Disposing of these soiled flexible containers, at best, is unpleasant.
The second basic approach is exemplified by U.S. Pat. No. 3,386,417. This approach of the art provides a semi-rigid container in the essential shape of a tray. The purpose of the tray is to hold absorbent material and after reasonable use, the absorbent material is disposed of and the tray is washed for reuse. While this approach provides easier disposal of the excrement and soiled absorbent, as opposed to the flexible sheets, washing of the tray, for reuse is an unpleasant task. Generally, these trays are made of a plastic material of sufficient thickness to provide the semi-rigid characteristic and as such are too expensive to be a disposable item. Washing and reuse thereof is, accordingly, required for economic utilization of that waste container. However, even with washing, the trays tend to eventually retain an odor.
There are, of course, many variations of these two basic approaches in the art, and particularly in regard to the flexible sheet, which very often may contain absorbents, deodorants, and the like, e.g., see U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,626,899 and 3,284,273.
Equally important to the problems associated with disposing of the waste, is the problem of odor control in the used container. Here again, there are two basic approaches to odor control. The first approach, primarily associated with the flexible containers, is the inclusion of a deodorant and/or absorbent in the container itself. It is also possible to place particulate absorbent onto the flexible sheet, but this substantially increases the difficulty of folding and disposing of the so-formed container. Additionally, it is difficult, if not impossible, to keep the particulate matter on the flexible sheet when simply placed on the floor. Odor control in flexible containers substantially increase the cost of those containers, beyond that discussed above, and even so result in limited use of the container before the odors become objectionable.
The semi-rigid containers, as described above, may contain absorbent material, but any waste, particularly urine, which can pass through that absorbent material can collect onto the plastic impervious tray and quickly produce disagreeable odors. For these approaches, substantial amounts of masking compounds, deodorants and the like are generally required, either as originally contained in the absorbent material or as added thereto. Even with the further addition of the masking compounds or deodorants, limited use by the animal can often cause disagreeable odors which require emptying of the semi-rigid container, washing and refilling with new absorbent material.
As can therefore be appreciated, each of these basic approaches in the art suffer from their own disadvantages. It would be desirable to provide an animal waste container which combines the advantages of each, while avoiding the disadvantages of each. It would further be desirable to provide such containers where the cost of manufacture is less than the flexible container and the convenience of use is greater than the semi-rigid container.